Clipmarks
Silkweaverfollowshare
12-16-2008 8:38 AM
783 views
Silkweaver says:
For Harris, having the ability to improve our species lot in life but refusing to do so, makes little sense. He has a difficult time understanding why some people are so insistent that we shouldn’t try to improve upon human evolution.
17 Comments   | Add a Comment
12-16-2008 1:09 PM
ColoradoRight
We have already improved things so much that the brainless can now reproduce. We are changing humans by allowing the stupid to succeed.
12-16-2008 8:00 PM
katsteevns
Tell it to the 1/3rd of mankind with substandard drinking water and malnutrition.
This is rubbish!
Harris just wants your tax and health care dollars to go to his buddies so they can live high on the hog. He probably believes the crap he is yakking, too.

Feed the world. Then you can worry about extending lives.
12-16-2008 8:50 PM
Silkweaver
If we become smarter, don't you think it will be easier to feed everybody? Agreed that any enhancement technology should be available to all, and anyway it is an option no one will force anybody to extend his life or become enhanced in any way. I do not see however any reason to ban it just because a bunch of people do not like the idea.
12-16-2008 10:26 PM
katsteevns
I have often heard that there is no shortage of food, only shortage in delivery systems.

The human race is very intelligent, but if some kinds of knowledge take money out of the pockets of certain businessmen, they will put up a fight to see that knowledge repressed. (ie: the electric car,alternative fuels, solar power, etc.)
12-17-2008 3:34 AM
thisnamecantbetaken
we are morally obliged to
Sure! Let's find any good excuse we can to play God. Of course, evolution has millenniums worth of "experience", but us hoomans are just SO much smarter than nature. Right?
12-17-2008 3:37 AM
thisnamecantbetaken
We are an exponentially fast-growing human population on a planet with finite resources. We've figured out how to decrease the death rate, but have done nothing to, at the same time, reduce the birth rate. It's a recipe for disaster.
12-17-2008 3:40 AM
thisnamecantbetaken
12-17-2008 6:38 AM
Silkweaver
In many countries birth rate is on decline, many of these have actually a negative birth rate. As health wealth and education are growing, people are less inclined to have many children.
12-17-2008 6:42 AM
Silkweaver
I also believe that as people become smarter and more educated, on the long run they become more tolerant and aware to the condition of other fellow humans. Eventually when enough people realize we are all interconnected, it will also bring about a fair redistribution of wealth information and other resources. At least for information it is already happening more and more on the web.
12-17-2008 7:57 AM
thisnamecantbetaken
the long run

eventually
As a whole the world population growth is still staggering. I think we are running out of time faster, than we can achieve the necessary level of education and redistribution and "smarts". The will just doesn't seem to be there.
12-17-2008 8:24 AM
katsteevns
Smarts won't eliminate selfishness which will grow exponentially along with smarts.
12-17-2008 7:39 PM
Savi010
Being dependend on medicins, I would not want to urge a survival of the fittest in which any medical intervention would be prohibited. However, I would also not like to live in a society where aging is considered a disease which most be stopped at all costs and deteriorating health is seen as a sin. In such a ”brave new world” people who cannot or choose not to ‘improve’ themselves could easily be considered a burden. As a matter of fact, I think this kind of attitude is allready arising.... Having said that, I also think that developments like Harris promotes can and should not be stopped. It would be unnatural and simply impossible to forbid the human mind to explore new possibilities. So,...
12-17-2008 7:40 PM
Savi010
A couple of years ago, I came up with a totally reverse solution for the quest for health and wealth among humans. I envisioned a society in which everybody was granted fullfillment of their basic needs (housing, health care, education). People would have good working conditions, get a fair payceck and they would not have to work until their bodies would give up on them, but be able to retire at the age of 55. They then would receive a decent pension with which they could maintain their lifestyle. It all sounds to good to be true, you might think. How are we going to pay for all of this? Well, this is the clue: in western society health care costs in general rise immensely once people get ov...
12-17-2008 7:41 PM
Savi010
My personal motto is that the quality of life is not depending on its quantity and if the quality sucks, it can be hell to (be expected to) prolong it....
12-17-2008 11:17 PM
katsteevns
I still feel we ought to make sure that everyone on the planet has the basics (food,water,housing,civil rights) before we dive into expensive advanced scientific research.
Only the wealthy can afford the new technology anyway. The poorest will be at the back of the line as usual.
12-18-2008 12:12 AM
Jorjor
@ColoradoRight: You're the living proof.
12-19-2008 10:08 AM
Silkweaver
Savi010: When life extension is involved, the basic and critical premise is that a very good health condition is part of the deal. There is no sense to extend a life ridden with disease and disability. Life extension means also health extension beyond the standards available to us today. I am sorry to know that your health condition is not optimal, but surely you can imagine getting healthy someday, and once the burden of health condition is relieved, it seems only natural that one would like to live on. As to your suggestion, limiting our life span will never work, at least not in the way you suggest. Nevertheless I entirely agree that even when we will be able to live much longer, the opti...
Login to Comment.  Not a member yet? Sign up
Embed This Clip In Your Site...

New from the makers of Clipmarks:  Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!

OK